Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

DanielCFilho

Subdivision Surface Sphericals

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DanielCFilho said:

Thanks for the recipe, Cerbera. I'll try that.

You're welcome. If you run into problems with yours, let me know, and upload the scene file so i can check what you did...

 

1 hour ago, DanielCFilho said:

what I've understood is that whatever method people use, the end result seems to be always just an aproximation, never the perfect spherical.

No, that's not true. Provided you use the spherify on the subdivided result of your model before you delete the lower half and model the bottom of the glass you  get the top as perfectly spherical as spherical goes ! That isn't necessarily the case if you apply it directly to the base (unsubdivided) model, which may not have enough segmentation to conform to the curve the spherify is demanding, whereas the SDS result mesh almost certainly will.

 

CBR

Share this post


Link to post

For the script point to circle you can use maybe this one ,

 

Share this post


Link to post
  • Topic Author
  • On 15/10/2017 at 1:50 AM, Cerbera said:

    No, that's not true. Provided you use the spherify on the subdivided result of your model before you delete the lower half and model the bottom of the glass you  get the top as perfectly spherical as spherical goes ! That isn't necessarily the case if you apply it directly to the base (unsubdivided) model, which may not have enough segmentation to conform to the curve the spherify is demanding, whereas the SDS result mesh almost certainly will.

     

    CBR

    What I can't figure it out is how to apply the spherify deformer to the subdivided result and get the according necessary deformation on the base mesh. I think I've tried all the permutations possible and until now my idea is that the spherify deformer can only deform or the subdivided result or the base mesh, but never the base according to the result. That's the main problem with the spherify deformer for me. Cos' in the end what I need in these cases are simple polygon based geometry to put under SDS, without deformers.
    Coming back to the starting case, just to simplify: a basic hexahedron. If I put it under a Hypernurbs, and after it as a second child I put the spherify deformer, I would have a perfect spherical result after the subdivision. But after that, how can I get rid of the deformer and get the right base mesh that would give me the same subdivided result?
    Maybe I'm missing something very simple, but that's the kunundrum...

    Thanks anyways, man.

    -

    And thanks, Caveman, for the link to the script. It'll be very useful.

    -

    And just to clarify, guys, I mentioned a light bulb just as an example. I'm not modeling one, right now. In fact, late last year I modeled a light bulb but because of this exact problem I had to leave just the bulb with a much larger polygon density and not subdividable. I'll attach some images. (And as relatively I consider this an old model, please don't mind the triangles and the couple of T-Verts, as they say. It doesn't happen no more, you rest assured!)

    Light Bulb (E27)_12.jpg

    Light Bulb (E27)_01.jpg

    Light Bulb (E27)_02.jpg

    Light Bulb (E27)_03.jpg

    Light Bulb (E27)_11.jpg

    Share this post


    Link to post

    I do get your point, and you are not missing anything obvious, and are you correct that spherify is not always an applicable answer.

     

    However, as much as I love hexa-spheres for their non-polar excellence, when you want something most accurately spherical, then don't use it in those cases. The Standard sphere gives the closest result to perfect without deformers, and quads can be maintained with the pole patch methods we first mentioned, although I do concede that there is no automatic way to maintain a flawless sphere on the base mesh without using higher base subdivision (enough to support the spherify deformer) and then applying that deformer using CSTO before you continue modelling. But, whilst I do accept that this is not a flawless solution I also can't remember any occasion in a 10 year + modelling career when I have ever needed to get it more accurate than I could by eye alone ! Also, it shouldn't be massively detrimental to any scene to build one level of subdivision into the base mesh (enough to support the deformers), leaving 1 or 2 levels to SDS afterwards, or just to build your base mesh for that object slightly higher in segmentation to begin with - it doesn't actually need to be that segmented to hold the curve; 24-36 segments usually does it for me...

     

    CBR

    Share this post


    Link to post

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...